Clinton Didn't "Ban" Guns On Military Bases

[wvit1001]

The "gun-free zone" argument has become a favorite fallback position for gun advocates in the wake of deadly shooting sprees. Desperate to turn attention away from the epidemic of gun violence in America and shooters' ability to get access to firearms, conservatives insist that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur. (i.e. The "good guys" would stop the "bad guys.") And in terms of shootings on military bases, the universal right-wing truth now is that it's all Bill Clinton's fault because in 1993 he banned guns on military bases, making it impossible for soldiers to respond to eruptions of hostile gunfire. Bases are "unarmed" due to a "Clinton-era law," according to Rush Limbaugh, while killers "pick places where there are no guns.

In reality, the rules on military bases don't ban all guns, which is obvious since among the shooter's first victims were armed security personnel. And those rules were actually issued during the first Bush administration and survived the second, despite their alleged perfidy.

But since Monday, lamenting "gun-free zones" has become the preferred battle cry.

News reports from the Navy Yard clearly debunk that claim.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Washington, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier detailed how local police officers arrived at the Navy Yard within two or three minutes of the first shots ringing out, and that even before that, "internal security" at the Navy Yard was firing at the gunman.

Does that sound like gun-free facility to you? Does that sound like the gunman didn't have to worry about anybody shooting back, as the Daily Caller absurdly claimed?

What these media conservatives are pointing to is not an executive order but a regulation issued by the Department of the Army in March 1993 regarding firearms on military bases. While that rule said most soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons, the Army certainly did not ban all guns in those facilities. 

According to the Army's 1993 directive:

 
a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.



 

Moreover, while conservatives are blaming Clinton for the Army regulation, The New Republic's Ryan Kearney points out that the rule was actually established in response to a 1992 Department of Defense directive, issued during the presidency of George H. W. Bush.

Curiously, the conservatives pushing these claims did not question why, if Clinton really backed such a naked gun grab, President George W. Bush didn't change the rules for military bases during his eight years in office. (Answer: Clinton didn't.)


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass-shootings-and-gun-free/195927

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

[takncarabizniz]

I haven't heard the argument that gun free zones on military bases means no one has a gun there...it's meant to ensure that ONLY the authorized do, which includes members of the military.  But when you have a nut job, how do you ensure that nut job won't take a gun on a base?
 
When will the argument start that we need to stop worrying about the guns themselves, and start worrying about who and how the mentally ill, criminally inclined are getting them?
 
When will you argue that gun free zones are only for the law abiding?

[dont-blameme]

Are you now an expert on how the military functions nitwvit, if so why don't you post your branch of the military you served and your rank, then explain how to come to know it all?

[lakitss]

Wvit is a liberal dipshit.
 
Clinton essentially disarmed the soldiers who, BTW are fully trained on many weapons, so why the fuck can't they be trusted with one of their own?
 
Democrats are fucking retarded, and seem to want innocent civilians to die rather than make common sense decisions.

[wvit1001]

I wasn't in the military blammey, but I can read.  Can you?
 
 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

[sweetwater5s9]

Time to change that fatal policy on military bases isn't it?

[wvit1001]

I guess that is up to the Department of Defense isn't it.
 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf

[hoosier_daddy]

idiots think some loon with an assault weapon who decides to start shooting at startled humans EVEN IF THEY ARE ARMED could not kill roughly the same amount if he can fire 30 rounds in 5 seconds....and the returning fire, if anybody would think about returning fire first instead of ducking for cover first, might kill who knows how many more and still not save any lives.  you don't think even adumbs could kill 12 people in 5 seconds if he had an assault weapon and started shooting first in a crowded area?

[sweetwater5s9]

 
If they cannot kill an idiot like the perp at the Naval Yard, they will be useless in combat.

[Dan]

The reason Clinton banned guns for military personnel was because he hated the military so much, he feared a military coup would topple his oppressive regime.

[wvit1001]

Clinton didn't ban guns on military bases dan.  Why do you lie?

[sweetwater5s9]

Clinton's revised directive in 1993 did , though...